I just realized that last screenshot doesn't really show what I'm talking about as far as the unified toolbar look (because it's installed on Win XP). Here's a better example:
I wish microsoft would just build a new os from the ground up, at the moment its like an upside down pyramid, bloated operating system on an unstable base, or I wish Google would release an OS.
It's just so ugly. How do they manage to make it so hideous?
I always wonder about that myself. It's not like graphic designers are in short supply, and it's not like polishing up the basic look of the UI runs athwart of legacy code or breaks anything.
It's like they design this stuff with one eye on the latest version of OS X and one eye on some sort of "least likely to alarm people who buy their computers at Walmart" algorithm. "We'd like to make it better looking, but our client base has had their taste in design shaped by supermarket tabloid layout...."
And, of course, a healthy dose of shear perversity. Look at those shots of transparent windows.
It's like "We can do transparency now. Fuck OS X. We'll make.......THIS transparent! So there!"
I wish microsoft would just build a new os from the ground up, at the moment its like an upside down pyramid, bloated operating system on an unstable base...
Keep in mind that this is the first public Beta. Longhorn has gone through many cosmetic changes in its (long) development. It's quite possible it will be changed again before 2006. Though I'm sure MS will prove me wrong.
Quote:
i like to think of myself more of a cool Protoss Zealot.
Looks just like same old Windows. The only difference I see is that it has been aquafied to look more like a modern OS. In other words, to look like Mac OS X.
Do you know what a shock to the collective system of society it would be for MS to build a system from the ground up? Think about how many people use Windows and what kind of outcry there'd be if MS released a new operating system that ended up being *just different enough* from XP like OS X was from OS 9.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
Do you know what a shock to the collective system of society it would be for MS to build a system from the ground up? Think about how many people use Windows and what kind of outcry there'd be if MS released a new operating system that ended up being *just different enough* from XP like OS X was from OS 9.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
But still, why break the self-righteous zealotry here with well-thought reasonable arguments?
Do you know what a shock to the collective system of society it would be for MS to build a system from the ground up? Think about how many people use Windows and what kind of outcry there'd be if MS released a new operating system that ended up being *just different enough* from XP like OS X was from OS 9.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
Right... why should we expect M$ to actually do something right and original for a change? Give me a break.
Comments
Originally posted by geekdreams
I just realized that last screenshot doesn't really show what I'm talking about as far as the unified toolbar look (because it's installed on Win XP). Here's a better example:
http://photos22.flickr.com/29295441_007b32972b.jpg
In Windows (at least Win2K, what I use at work) the toolbar order is drag-n-drop configurable.
Originally posted by trick fall
It's just so ugly. How do they manage to make it so hideous?
I always wonder about that myself. It's not like graphic designers are in short supply, and it's not like polishing up the basic look of the UI runs athwart of legacy code or breaks anything.
It's like they design this stuff with one eye on the latest version of OS X and one eye on some sort of "least likely to alarm people who buy their computers at Walmart" algorithm. "We'd like to make it better looking, but our client base has had their taste in design shaped by supermarket tabloid layout...."
And, of course, a healthy dose of shear perversity. Look at those shots of transparent windows.
It's like "We can do transparency now. Fuck OS X. We'll make.......THIS transparent! So there!"
Originally posted by iDunno
What is Vista? Is vista the new name for Longhorn?
You got it
Why the change from Longhorn to Vista? To thrownaysayers off of the scent?
Originally posted by iDunno
Is vista just the codename until they release it with a windows name? Like WindowsX, or Windows Lame?
Why the change from Longhorn to Vista? To thrownaysayers off of the scent?
mate, this page has exactly the answers you seek:
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/711.html
I wish microsoft would just build a new os from the ground up, at the moment its like an upside down pyramid, bloated operating system on an unstable base...
How is that?
i like to think of myself more of a cool Protoss Zealot.
Who knows, maybe you'll become a Dragoon someday.
Originally posted by Wingnut
....Who knows, maybe you'll become a Dragoon someday.
heh.
M$ needs to die.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Do you know what a shock to the collective system of society it would be for MS to build a system from the ground up? Think about how many people use Windows and what kind of outcry there'd be if MS released a new operating system that ended up being *just different enough* from XP like OS X was from OS 9.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
But still, why break the self-righteous zealotry here with well-thought reasonable arguments?
M$ sukz, Apple rulez!!111!111!
Looks better than XP now.
But we all know they will screw it up.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Do you know what a shock to the collective system of society it would be for MS to build a system from the ground up? Think about how many people use Windows and what kind of outcry there'd be if MS released a new operating system that ended up being *just different enough* from XP like OS X was from OS 9.
For as similar as OS X was to OS 9, face it, a LOT of people had a difficult time in the transition...and that was just in the Mac community. To do something similar to the Windows user base would be nearly tantamount to changing the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. It wouldn't be pretty.
My point: MS may *want* to change their core OS quite a bit, but probably understand they pretty much can't. Changing their OS to what it should be would be much more complicated for everyone than even the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 95 was.
Right... why should we expect M$ to actually do something right and original for a change? Give me a break.